Does anyone else like the driver swap idea?

Everyone's always saying things like "Oh but if he was in the Ferrari he would do just as well, or if racer X were in the Minardi, he wouldn't do well either" Then, there are statements about drivers..."If MS was in a midfield team he would still win a few" Then there are arguments about whether F1 is 50% car and 50% driver, or is 90/10, 80/20, etc...

As very observant critics and fans of F1 it seems to me this is exactly what we've been dreaming about forever, a way to see how much of an effect each driver and design/engineering team have in the final product.

Just because you wouldn't know which T-shirt to buy doesn' mean it's a bad idea. Of course there are more serious issues this proposal raises, but all of them are a question of money and egos. No one can reasonably make arguments about the technical difficulties adjusting the car for each driver....Teams have adjusted the spare car to fit a driver between Saturday practice and qualifying. Certainly if they have 2 weeks to prepare for each new pair of drivers, this will not be a problem. The real problem is that it causes confusion about how to pay the drivers. Can anyone think of one reasonable technical problem associated with the driver swap idea?

Actually I like the idea!
I think it would determine clearly who are the best team and best driver, as long as the allocation is done fairly e.g If MS has to drive a Minardi on 2 occasions so should the other top drivers like JPM, Coulthard, Ralf et al
I could live with this proposal as a trial for at least a year.....it would perk up interest in F1 because of the lottery factor.

It is however a crazy idea as there are 2 many obstacles in the way, like contracts, sponsorships,
team secrets, driver salaries (who picks them up? eg MS $25m)...so i can't see this ever happening.
I prefer this option as a spectacle then the weight penalty.

While it might be quite interesting in theory, its completely unworkable in practice.

The first question I would ask is Who chooses the drivers ?

If it left to the teams, they no longer have any incentive to actually choose the best drivers, because they won't gain any advantage from having the best drivers about.....

If it isn't left to the teams then it would have to be done by the FIA, which would leave drivers in a situation where if they did anything to offend Max or Bernie, or whoever might succeed them, they risk being 'deselected' the following year. Of course, the FIA might rather like the idea of getting to choose who did and did not race in F1, but it strikes me that such a system would be open to monumental levels of corruption.

Not that its going to happen anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

If iI get time over the weekend, I might write down some scribblings regarding the FIA's proposals, of which at most two or three are sensible, and I might have a few of my own to make.

Nobody's mentioning control tyres, which, while driving Michelin and Bridgestone out of the sport, might do a lot to even up the sport and make it a little more interesting. The ultra hard durable Avon tyres used in BOSS F1 would have the desired effect of slowing F1 cornering speeds dramatically while lessening grip levels, which would spice things up. Combine this with a ban on electronics (Ok, there are going to be those who reckon a return to mechanical fuel injection in this day and age is ludicrous, but I can't see how else you can prevent circumvention of any ban on traction control) and already progress is being made.

After hering Mosly explane the rule today I like it more, and as gerry nassar say, it woth be great to se what other drivers woth do in other cars then there own, but it will not be F1 it will not be the best driver/team that win the championship. The cars work better/wors on different tracks, team dont want to spend miljons on cars when thay dont know what driver will drive it etc etc there are to many faults in the system.

Well, I also would love to be able to swing my finger and find a cure for cancer, guarantee world peace, economic stability for everyone, and no Todd on AtlasF1...... However, reality is quite a different matter. Now, if Max Mosley would stop abusing Prozac/Ecstacy mixes and decide to come back from his allucinations, maybe we can start working on practical, common-sense ways to improve Formula 1's competitions.........

oh, and by the way....the idea of seeing Yoong on a Ferrari or McLaren or Williams is not interesting, IMO is ridiculous. Want a Ferrari or McLaren or Williams? you've got to deserve one. It's not like Raikkonen and Schumacher and Monty got one because they were born with one........

I find the idea ridiculous, we could just as well have the teams swapping cars.

I´m very conservative when it comes to sport, and this goes against all tradition. The only positive thing I see in this proposal is that it would further seperate the Drivers Championship and Constructors Championship.

Originally posted by RedFever oh, and by the way....the idea of seeing Yoong on a Ferrari or McLaren or Williams is not interesting, IMO is ridiculous. Want a Ferrari or McLaren or Williams? you've got to deserve one. It's not like Raikkonen and Schumacher and Monty got one because they were born with one........

When did 'just desert' (ie the theory of deserve) ever have a place in F1?!? Were other drivers more deserving of that Mclaren seat than Kimi???

Although the idea is interesting, I can't see the sponsors supporting it. Also, from a team perspective it would be a lot of work to set the car up for different drivers. One of the key ingredients for a team's success is the chemistry that exists between the driver & his mechanics, and this swapping about would make this nearly impossible.

The "What if they swapped drivers?" idea while novel, is right up there with "What if Bernie Ecclestonegave all of his money away?" in the realm of possibilty. I think the fact that the idea has been floatedcan be taken as a sign of desperation.

I guess that the poor economic climate is to blame (Did FOM and the FIA think F1 was going to grow at a 10-20% rate into infinity:rolleyes: )

Ferrari is dominant now, Williams have been dominant, McLaren have been dominant, Lotus have been dominant and the sport seemed to survive. What the sport may not be able to survive is a set of Mickey Mouse rulechange that punish excellence. This quest for excellence is one of the things that attracts the best and the brightest to Formula One and makes the Formula attractive (to drivers, team owners, manufacturers and fans)in the first place.

One last thing, the FIA should try to spice things up by giving bigger (slick) tires, restricted or eliminated diffusers and smaller wings a try before they start adding ballast to the faster cars and switching drivers.

Originally posted by tony Everyone's always saying things like "Oh but if he was in the Ferrari he would do just as well, or if racer X were in the Minardi, he wouldn't do well either" Then, there are statements about drivers..."If MS was in a midfield team he would still win a few" Then there are arguments about whether F1 is 50% car and 50% driver, or is 90/10, 80/20, etc...

As very observant critics and fans of F1 it seems to me this is exactly what we've been dreaming about forever, a way to see how much of an effect each driver and design/engineering team have in the final product.

Just because you wouldn't know which T-shirt to buy doesn' mean it's a bad idea. Of course there are more serious issues this proposal raises, but all of them are a question of money and egos. No one can reasonably make arguments about the technical difficulties adjusting the car for each driver....Teams have adjusted the spare car to fit a driver between Saturday practice and qualifying. Certainly if they have 2 weeks to prepare for each new pair of drivers, this will not be a problem. The real problem is that it causes confusion about how to pay the drivers. Can anyone think of one reasonable technical problem associated with the driver swap idea?

Well I like that idea and you have same opinion as I do, but I said it once and was called "joking"

...and why would anyone think that DRIVER B, would be competive in CAR A?
I mean the "blue button" on one steering wheel might be the "Boost" , the "OFF" on
another. These are Formula One cars not Karts.

About the "who gets to drive?" question, couldn't it be solved with a team signing two drivers, who get to drive their cars once they've tried all the others... Or something. Maybe the team could choose a few races each season where "their" drivers will drive their cars (this could possibly affect team budgets in a positive way too, since driver salaries might go down). Anyway I think it's quite a funny idea, it would definitely be interesting. But of course it won't happen...

It's a stoopid idea, and it favours those drivers who are adept at setting up a car. MS and HHF are good at that and you can imagine MS taking the title home. JPM might have to rely on a teams setup, or just plain be at the mercy of things, as he has longer to find a suitable setup for a car.

Also in the long run it will make it impossible for fans to bond with a team/driver combination. While it will be fun the first year, the years after it will alienate people further from the sport.

Here is what I suggest for enhancing the on track interest. Bring the sport back nearer to the people.

Set certains times, when everyone has access to the paddock. Sure that needs some organisation, but it would stir interest so people come to the actual venue. Also since it is impossible that everyone attending a race will have a peek in the paddock in one year, you provide interest for another year to come and try to have a stroll there.

For the race, disallow changing tyres and fuel (except for a damaged tyre of course). If a competitor is running out of fuel, he might be allowed to add fuel, but the driver incurs a time penalty, which is determined by the track length, and the in/out times in the box, and it is allowed only in the last laps (5% of the laps for the entire race)

Should bring back the different strategies we've seen in the past and the necessity to pass on track. If there need to be changes in the aero department too to have more mechanical grip, well so be it.

Should also reduce the overall costs, for example tyres, personell in the pitlane, etc.

"When did 'just desert' (ie the theory of deserve) ever have a place in F1?!? Were other drivers more deserving of that Mclaren seat than Kimi???"

No there wasn't actually. See, if I were Ron Dennis I would have hired Fisichella, who would have also helped develop the car further, given his experience. But Kimi and his maager convinced Dennis and Mercedes that he was the best candidate for the job. Whether it was his great rookie year, whether it's his maturity (compare his driving to Sato and Massa and you will notice Kimi drives more like a vetaran compared to them) or simply something Dennis feels, maybe intangible, in the kid, that's all it matters. Kimi didn't bring a suitecase with $5M in it to pay for his seat. He was actually offered an amazing contract based on what he has shown. That is what I mean by deserving it. Talent is subjective and different people like different qualities. Ron liked what he saw in Kimi, so by default Kimi totally 100% desrves the chance he got.

And no, Yoong does NOT deserve the same chance and I don't want to see a wannabe driver in an F1-2003 next season. The idea is absolutely ridiculous. Should England then demand that next year Ronaldo plays for them? should Germany appeal to have Vieri in their team every other game? what a silly concept, F1 is also a team sport and you need the drivers to work on developing the car. It is only fair that they then collect the fruits of their own work when the season starts. I don't see why Schumi and Rubensshould work on the 2003 model to see, say, Jenson Button win with that car. Totally ludicrous.

At this point, Ecclestone and Mosley just sound as desperate as the fans (!) supporting these ideas (!)...

Originally posted by gerry nassar I'd love to see different drivers in different teams - it would be great. But realistically it just cab't happen. It would also basically rule out a legitimate world championship fight.

I'd say that maybe the FIA should set aside 2 or 3 races or so where a lottery is done and drivers are swapped around. They could then do battle in these non championship rounds.

my thoughts exactly. i figured it would be great to see an 18th race, after the championship is over. Just for fun ;)

Locai, this is completely different than a spec series. A spec series only shows who the best drivers are. The driver swapping would also show which cars are the best. For example if the driver of the McLaren always did well, this would show the McLaren was a great car. And if Fisi does well in any car, it shows he is a great driver. You get answers to both questions (driver skill and car design) with the swapping series. Every current series is either a spec, or is a technology series. One shows driver talent and the other shows great car design. F1 is largely a technology series...THere's no reason to think any of the drivers (except Yoong and maybe a couple of others) in F1 wouldn't have won with this years Ferrari. So is MS the best driver in the world? No one knows. With the swapping series we would know for sure.

One compromise might be for each team to sign and pay two drivers as always. Then each weekend would have two races. One being a traditional F1 race with the drivers racing for the teams that pay them. The second race would be with swapped drivers. The points from both races would be added as always and calculated into the WDC and WCC.

I have not read all the replys and I concur that this not a good idea.

BUT, what I would like to see is for example at the end of the season at one track, could be changed every year, a race weekend where say the 4-6 top teams must supply a car and then some of the drivers would drive them in short races changing cars inbetween. It would be great for driver input, and fans.

Before you all jump on me, I agree there are pitfalls with setup and how the teams could detune ther cars but It would be something anyway, that would help the visibility of the sport.

Seeing the least deserving drivers drive and F2002 in one time or another is not my idea for racing in F1. this rule would completely divert the equal focus of driver and car to just the car.

Then LAuda would be right: Any monkey can drive a freaking F1 car. If Alex Yoong ever wins in a Ferrari, it'll probably be the most farcical and embarrassing day in F1, and would signal the World Drivers Championship as nothing but pure exhibitionism.

People seem to forget that F1 is a sport of DRIVERS AND CARS, not just CARS.

Great drivers develop their cars, and make them competitive. With this rule, it goes down the gutter. Not to mention the contracts of the drivers and all that financial crap.

I'm amazed that there's people supporting this ridiculous idea. They don't realize this idea completely betrays the tradition that F1 has had for the last 50 years

Look at it this way. You have worked your butt off to become President of the Company, and now two weeks per year you get to sweep up the warehouse floor, among other duties. Meanwhile while you are cleaning the toilets the Accounts payable clerk is in your office deciding on a merger and aquisition opportunity. Sure would make things interesting???

Remember F1 is a business first and racing second. This idea is somewhere between absurd and insane.

Seeing the least deserving drivers drive and F2002 in one time or another is not my idea for racing in F1. this rule would completely divert the equal focus of driver and car to just the car.

Then LAuda would be right: Any monkey can drive a freaking F1 car. If Alex Yoong ever wins in a Ferrari, it'll probably be the most farcical and embarrassing day in F1, and would signal the World Drivers Championship as nothing but pure exhibitionism.

People seem to forget that F1 is a sport of DRIVERS AND CARS, not just CARS.

Great drivers develop their cars, and make them competitive. With this rule, it goes down the gutter. Not to mention the contracts of the drivers and all that financial crap.

I'm amazed that there's people supporting this ridiculous idea. They don't realize this idea completely betrays the tradition that F1 has had for the last 50 years

I don't quite understand why seeing MS or RB winning in Ferrari is OK, while seeing Yoong winning in Ferrari is not? Yes, drivers develop their cars. But because the cars and all other equipment belong to the team (not the driver), all testing and setup data likewise belong to the team. So its up to the team to decide, how to handle this data between themselves and drivers. Teams also have test drives who never compete. Do they not help to develop cars?In its present state Drivers champinshionship is a joke. Imagine, you and I compete. You drive a Spider, I drive Corolla. You win by 5 minutes. Are you a better driver? Apples and oranges, really.

Originally posted by Slyder This is where F1's problem is in the first place. Everything now is looked from the business point of view and not the racing point of view.People like Max and Bernie fail to understand that F1 is a sport NOT a business.

Yeah right, we've seen a lot of true "racing" last couple years... F1 is business and have always been. This is entertainment business. Name one sport, which is not business. Wimbledon is business, Olympic games is business. Do you trust everything you see in a movie? If you thought F1 is pure sport, it simply shows how well this business was run.

1. Stop changing the rules and allow the lesser funded teams an opportunity to catch up.
2. Allow all teams to share technology that is 2 years or more old.

Both of these ideas would help get to the heart of the problem - catching the front runner's technological advances. F1 does not need to level the playing field for the top 2 or 3 teams but 5 or 6 teams.

I don't quite understand why seeing MS or RB winning in Ferrari is OK, while seeing Yoong winning in Ferrari is not? Yes, drivers develop their cars. But because the cars and all other equipment belong to the team (not the driver), all testing and setup data likewise belong to the team. So its up to the team to decide, how to handle this data between themselves and drivers. Teams also have test drives who never compete. Do they not help to develop cars?In its present state Drivers champinshionship is a joke. Imagine, you and I compete. You drive a Spider, I drive Corolla. You win by 5 minutes. Are you a better driver? Apples and oranges, really.

What I'm talking about is that F1 is supposed to be a championship where the best drivers in the world compete.

Formula 1 is about drivers and cars competing, not just the cars. Any jackass can take a ferrari and win or finish high (Have you forgotten Mika Salo? or Gianni Morbidelli? )

Do you think I'm all pleased with all those worthless paydrivers taking seat time from better deserving drivers out there? Do you think its better to see a paydriver drive a Ferrari and make fool out of himself instead of letting a better driver drive that car?

The Drivers Championship is NOWADAYS a joke because team orders and business decisions come first and the drivers come later. This is not the way it should be.1

The drivers championship is the most important aspect of the Formula 1 World Championship. World Championship, what meaning do those two words mean if the Driver's championship is left for shit, and the Constructors Championship takes over?

Was the original purpose for the World Championship just to show off some driver driving great cars? Were the cars the actual focus of it?

Think about that

And that's one of the reasons why there are many ROUNDS of the World Championship to see who's the real winner.

You can't say the guy is the best race car driver in the world just because he beat you in one race? That's why there's many races. Apples and oranges my ass.

Yeah right, we've seen a lot of true "racing" last couple years... F1 is business and have always been. This is entertainment business. Name one sport, which is not business. Wimbledon is business, Olympic games is business. Do you trust everything you see in a movie? If you thought F1 is pure sport, it simply shows how well this business was run.

When did you started watching F1? HAve you ever read an F1 history book

F1 WAS NOT ALWAYS a business, it was a sport first and foremost. It was created so that the best drivers around the world would compete with the best cars out there, and in the battle, a driver would come out World Champion.

F1 is not only about cars, it's about drivers, its about them representing their country in this sport and giving it all and proving themselves as the greatest drivers in the world and having their country being represented so high.

Whoever said that F1 was always a business is a bloody idiot. F1 has always been a sport, but is the greediness of certain idiots in that same sport and its governing body that had made it a business, and they rather turn F1 into a circus show just to win a few bucks rather than promoting it as a sport

However, I think that a single non-championship race with drivers chosen by lottery, with proceeds going to something like UNICEF would be good public relations for F1.

On the other hand it would probably be too much work - and I suspect that some of the teams would prefer not to have rival drivers in their cars. So perhaps cars from the previous season could be used?

And that's one of the reasons why there are many ROUNDS of the World Championship to see who's the real winner.

See you first statement above and repeat it 16 times, one time for each race.

F1 WAS NOT ALWAYS a business, it was a sport first and foremost. It was created so that the best drivers around the world would compete with the best cars out there, and in the battle, a driver would come out World Champion.

Any professional sport is business. You really do believe that car makers built cars for racing not to advertize their brandnames and boost sales, but to give "the best driver" opportunity to grab the title, don't you?

It's a silly idea. Apart from logistical problems (who signs the drivers, what do the sponsors think, etc.) it would randomize things too much when the cars are as unequal as they are now.

In the absence of any retirements, we would expect the cars to finish Ferrari 1-2, McLaren 3-4, Williams 5-6 (maybe the Williams and McLarens might mix it up a bit, but I want to keep it simple). If a driver gets his Ferrari ride when Yoong is in the other Ferrari, that's 10 points, but if MS is in the other Ferrari, he'll have to settle for 6. Given there are only 4 or 5 cars capable of scoring points these days (usually), those 4 points will be hard to get back. Even the 1 point difference between finishes in the lower places could be huge after the first 10 races. Or what if you have a mechanical problem in your Ferrari drive, and get no points in one of your few opportunities to score? Or what if you're in a Michelin-shod car and it rains during the race?

My guess is that after the first 10 races, the final driver order will be more determined by luck than any measure of driver skill, simply because there are so few cars capable of scoring points and there are large gaps between the performances of different teams. This proposal was intended to make driver skill the dominant factor, but it doesn't do that. Therefore it is a bad proposal. QED.

Interesting replies. The trouble is that all they tell us is that virtually none of you have actually taken the trouble to READ the proposal. In the best Atlas BB tradition, you have just mouthed off without bothering about the facts.

To help you out, the proposal suggests that the FIA will appoint and contract the drivers at the start of the season, not the teams. So the objection that "Montoya is a Williams driver" will not apply, because Montoya will be a FIA driver, just like Michael etc. Similarly, there is no question of Yoong in a Ferrari, because Yoong won't be selected by the FIA, who will be picking the BEST drivers, not the richest (well, that's the theory anyway). So all the objections about team contracts, sponsors etc fall away. The scheme is entirely workable and would provide a level playing field in both the Drivers and Constructors chmapionships - IMO the results would be the same as the best drivers and the best cars/teams would still come to the front.

But I personally don't want to see this plan put into action as I prefer the idea of competing teams with drivers part of the team. And I doubt if the FIA could square all the vested interests that will be opposed to the idea. So don't worry, it isn't going to happen - not because it is a crap idea (and thank you for your carefully worded and thoughtfully argued post, JForce) but because the politics of F1 will not allow it.

Max has included it as a loss-leader - whilst you and the teams etc are all up in arms about this and about penalty ballast, all his other 7 proposals will be accepted almost unnoticed, which is what he planned all along.

Originally posted by BRG The scheme is entirely workable and would provide a level playing field in both the Drivers and Constructors chmapionships

on the contrary. its wholly UNWORKABLE. because no teams will tolerate someone else deciding who sits in their cars, and no driver will tolerate someone else deciding what car he sits in, and no sponsor will have any interest in random bunnies turning up in their suits, or their favourite driver wearing a rival companies badge.

and with no teams and no drivers and no sponsors onside (excapet maybe alex yoong and minardi) the scheme could never work. The FIA may as well set up a new champioship because this one would be nothing to do with f1, and would need a whole new set of participants